I last commented on the Republican race for the presidential
nomination on November 8, and even though the voting has begun, and even though
a few of the weaker candidates have thrown in the towel, nothing in the fundamental
dynamics of the race has changed. There
has been plenty of noise but the signal remains the same.
From the moment Trump entered the race, there has been one
issue---immigration. Trump has demanded
that the laws be enforced, that a border fence be built, and that any plans for
a path-to-whatever for illegals already here be dropped. Every
other Republican candidate, with the exception of Ted Cruz, has a long record
of supporting open borders and amnesty for illegals. Those in leadership positions in the Republican
Congress and in local offices (the “Republican establishment”) also support Obama’s
policies and even want to loosen border controls further. Many elected Republicans, and most of the
current candidates, have taken campaign contributions from groups and
individuals that seek what is called “comprehensive immigration reform.” These donors include the US Chamber of
Commerce, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffett, and many others.
Trump’s support comes from Republican voters (a majority of
them) who want the border enforced, and want American laws respected. They feel betrayed by elected Republicans who
have promised these things but then broke their promises and allowed millions
of illegals into the country. Some of
these immigrants are dangerous criminals.
Some bring disease. Some bring
cultural values (e.g., the inferiority of women and a boys-will-be-boys view of
rape) that ordinary folks in San Antonio or Des Moines or Albany find
appalling. Yet there is little effort,
even when these immigrants are identified, to expel them.
This issue (and the fact that Trump is not an elected Republican owned by the open-borders money guys), is
the reason Trump is leading in the polls.
It is the only reason. He is a
vulgar, inarticulate man with little credibility and no apparent understanding
of the Constitution, the role of law in the American republic, the history of
our foreign policy or macro-economics, but when he says he will build a fence
and enforce the laws, Republican voters believe him because he is the only
candidate (except for Cruz), who has not yet lied to them about this issue.
The Republican Party could have taken Trump down at any time
simply by taking his (one) issue away and embracing border enforcement,
wholeheartedly and without prevarication.
A flat-out, unambiguous statement of a change in policy would do
it. No more “paths” to whatever, no more
“dreamers,” no more lies about a fence, no more sanctuary cities, and no more
driver’s licenses for M-13 gang members.
Bring back Newt Gingrich for a day and make it a new Contract With
America. And that would be the end of the Trump candidacy.
At this point, however, it is clear the Republican Party
either cannot or will not abandon amnesty.
This means its only option is to find an open-borders Republican
candidate who can beat Trump.
First, of course, there was Jeb(!). Though he is still nominally in the race, even
the good old boys have figured out he is not going to get the job done.
Then, a couple weeks ago, the party decided they could take
down Trump with, believe it or not, Donald Trump. Feelers went out, overtures---hey, maybe we
can work with this guy, maybe once we bring him into the fold and tell him he
doesn’t have to spend his own money, maybe he’ll make a deal with us. He makes deals, right? He just wants to “win.” So if he wins and he’s our boy, well, then we
can finesse this whole fence problem.
It’s a plausible theory, or at least one can understand why
the amnesty forces and donors within the Republican Party would find it
tempting. Trump is a guy who praised
Hillary as a great public servant, thought Obamacare was just fine, and was
pro-choice about five minutes ago, so he looks very much like someone who
doesn’t have any core beliefs but will say just about anything if it will
enable him to “win,” (whatever “win” means at any given moment in his strangely
un-nuanced mind).
And that plan is still in play, at least on the back
burner. The problem with it is that he
is so mercurial that he cannot easily be trusted. One day, the people of Iowa are wonderful;
the next day they are idiots. One day
Megyn Kelly is a brilliant journalist and commentator; the next, she is
menstruating all over him. If he is
elected on a platform in which the major plank is building a security fence on
America’s southern border, what are the odds he would actually do it? Personally, I have no idea. So how can you make a deal with the guy?
Now that Jeb(!) is toast and the co-opt-Trump scenario is at
best a desperation back-up scheme, the new champion for the pro-amnesty
Republicans is Rubio. His last-minute
surge in Iowa makes him a player, and he has always had some attractive
qualities. He’s young and cute and
articulate and Cuban. (Some of his
mannerisms and gestures are reminiscent of JFK, and there is speculation that
Rubio has studied film of Kennedy and does this on purpose.)
Rubio is attractive to the good old boys, of course, because
of his participation in the “Gang of Eight,” the Senate group of four Democrats
and four Republicans who drafted an immigration bill and almost pushed it
through. The problem is that Rubio’s
role was so large and so notorious and so dishonest that too many Republicans remember what he did, even though it was
a few years ago and Rubio has since recanted his support for amnesty.
Rubio appeared on the national political scene as a
tea-party Republican running for the Senate in 2010 against Charlie Crist,
former Governor of Florida. Illegal
immigration was a BIG issue in that race, with Crist arguing for a “path to
citizenship” and Rubio vigorously denouncing him and demanding the laws be
enforced. Though Rubio was a virtual
unknown at the time, he pulled away from Crist in the race largely on the basis
of the immigration issue. It was only
two years after this election that Marco Rubio changed his tune and supported
amnesty in the Senate.
Candidates like Christie and Kasich and Fiorina all have
amnesty skeletons in their closets, but you have to dig for them. Every serious Republican, however, remembers
Rubio’s betrayal on this issue, and those who may have forgotten will be
reminded by Cruz and Trump. With
immigration the major issue in the 2016 presidential campaign, Marco Rubio
would have to explicitly acknowledge his perfidy, apologize for his error, and
pledge to take a hard line on border enforcement and swear he will never support
any sort of amnesty in the future. He
hasn’t done that, of course. No
politician ever wants to make that sort of mea culpa, even if he’s caught in
the sack with an altar boy. Instead, Rubio
claims he has changed his views. Sort
of. But it’s just not good enough in the
2016 campaign for the Republican nomination.
Speculating in a theoretical way, Rubio might actually be the best
candidate for the general election, and he might be able to beat whatever
geriatric white person the Democrats throw out there, but Rubio will not be the
Republican candidate no matter how much money Mark Zuckerberg drops on him.
And all of this leaves us where we were when I last
addressed these issues in November. The
only way to stop Donald Trump is for the Republican good old boys and donors to
give in on the amnesty issue and allow our laws to be enforced. And they won’t do it. They won’t do it even though they are
convinced Trump would lose the general election. (On
that point, I’m not so sure). The
Republican establishment, in other words, would rather Hillary or Bernie or Joe
be elected President than give up on their quest for open borders and amnesty
for illegals.
Copyright2016MichaelKubacki
Posts
